Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

epronovost wrote:
Ferrus Manus had the charisma of an oyster. He knew it himself and recognised this as his greatest mistake. He would have trouble turning his own Legion to Chaos let alone other Primarchs. Ferrus Manus would have been the worst choice after Kurze. After all, he was troubled by his Legion attitude toward bionic and flesh, but didn't knew how to adress it under the current circomstances.

but he might have been able to get more of the mechanicus to turn. Turn the rebellion into even more of logistical nightmare and win if ALL the titan legions turned traitor.

 Exergy wrote:

epronovost wrote:
Ferrus Manus had the charisma of an oyster. He knew it himself and recognised this as his greatest mistake. He would have trouble turning his own Legion to Chaos let alone other Primarchs. Ferrus Manus would have been the worst choice after Kurze. After all, he was troubled by his Legion attitude toward bionic and flesh, but didn't knew how to adress it under the current circomstances.

but he might have been able to get more of the mechanicus to turn. Turn the rebellion into even more of logistical nightmare and win if ALL the titan legions turned traitor.

Actually a valid point. Having the lion's share of titan legions and knight houses would have an impact.

 Shidank wrote:
If the Emperor had chosen Manus as Warmaster(as Horus admitted openly that Ferrus was the only one of his brothers to match his understanding of operating a war front) and Chaos had latched on to him rather than Horus, would much of the Heresy have changed?

After reading Outcast Dead where the Emperor seems to imply he sacrificed Ferrus Manus intentionally, I had to reason out why he would do that and simply decided that with Manus and Horus matched across the Imperium, it would end with both forces annihilating one another and leaving the Imperium open for xenos assault.

Assuming that's remotely right, would the Emperor have sacrificed Horus against Manus and 'his' version of the Dropsite Massacre?

What else might have gone differently?

Why do YOU think the Emperor may have sacrificed three legions?

Before start I want to frame my response correctly so i don't get accused of derailing it. I find extreme fault with the premise presented, and as such i don't feel i can adequately answer the question. Instead i will explain why i feel the premise is flawed.

In my opinion, your premise is flawed in several ways, which will affect the validity of the answers. I will first address the problems with Ferrus Manus as warmaster, and follow up with the problems I have with the idea of the emperor controlling the situation and intentionally sacrificing legions in any way.
1.Ferrus would never have been chosen as warm aster. Horus was chosen as war master because he was an amalgam of all the characteristics the emperor thought that position would require. Lacking his charisma, as has been state previously, would have made it nigh impossible for ferrus. That aside, the combat capability of the primarch is very much relevant, because martial prowess would dictate strength on the battle field. Strategy is good, but if he got out on the field and can't charismatically lead his men or hold his own against a rival primarch, then he is screwed
2. Ferrus wouldn’t have been chosen by chaos. Ferrus was a good logisitican and organizer. He also was very good with technology, but was terrible at politics, in fact he stayed out of them as often as he could. To someone who is portrayed as hyper rational, logical and nigh emotionless, the powers of chaos hold very little reward. From my understanding, he basically had the most leeway with tech that anyone was afforded by the Ad. Mech. And he wanted to organize his legion to be the most efficient. He had not ambitions to be more than what he was. And, if not charisma, personality, or political acumen, the one thin that the chaos gods needed in order to latch on to his soul would have been ambitions for thing larger than himself, and my understanding of what he has been portrayed to be he just didn’t have it.
3. All of the previously stated things aside, IF he had been war master, and IF he had fallen to chaos he would have take very few with him independent of external forces and certainly wouldn’t be the leader of the rebellion . The legions that fell, fell because either situations that specifically happened to their primarchs, or thing the emperor did to alienate them. The only reason Horus was as successful is he understood the situation and capitalized on his charisma and political strengths, something Ferrus was sorely lacking. If they had chosen to rebel they would have seen him more as a compatriot than a leader. IF that were to happen Loregar or Perturabo would probably have become the leader of the heresy,
4. If he was chosen as war master, and IF he Fell to chaos and IF he was chosen to lead the rebellion, it wouldn’t have been far reaching. What Horus understood better than any Primarch was how to use each legion and Primarch to the most effect. Ferrus, couldn’t do this because t would have required an insight into the personality and relationships that the other Primarch had, not only with each other but with their legions. Horus played Primarch and legions against each other to achieve his goals, and I doubt Ferrus would have done that because it requires an empathic understanding of the human/astartes./Primarch condition that Ferrus simply lacked. And without that the rebellion would have stalled and died due to infighting and internal strife.
5. I personally find the idea of the emperor "sacrificing" three legions at the drop site to be absurd. That implies that he was absolutely knowledgeable and in control of what was happening at the time of the drop site massacre, and he emphatically was not. If he was in a position to intentionally sacrifice Ferrus or any legion for that matter, he would either have to be present at the battle or have such good and up to the minute intelligence to make such decisions, And he wasn’t or didn’t. to imply that he did or was is to ignore the root cause of the heresy to begin with, the emperor’s personal distance from the fighting. Also intentionally killing a Primarch or sacrificing a single legion, let alone 3 as the question asked would have been suicidal to the emperor’s cause. The victory would have been pyrric at best. The emperor was simply too far removed to have any meaningful affect upon decisions at these battles. We also have no evidence that I know if, that indicates the emperor took a hand in formulating plans for either incident on istivaan or any battle before terra during the heresy.
These points are solely based upon my understanding of the 40k fluff. If I am wrong, and can be proven so I will gladly admit it, but that is my opinion on the matter.

 GKTiberius wrote:

 Shidank wrote:
If the Emperor had chosen Manus as Warmaster(as Horus admitted openly that Ferrus was the only one of his brothers to match his understanding of operating a war front) and Chaos had latched on to him rather than Horus, would much of the Heresy have changed?

After reading Outcast Dead where the Emperor seems to imply he sacrificed Ferrus Manus intentionally, I had to reason out why he would do that and simply decided that with Manus and Horus matched across the Imperium, it would end with both forces annihilating one another and leaving the Imperium open for xenos assault.

Assuming that's remotely right, would the Emperor have sacrificed Horus against Manus and 'his' version of the Dropsite Massacre?

What else might have gone differently?

Why do YOU think the Emperor may have sacrificed three legions?

Before start I want to frame my response correctly so i don't get accused of derailing it. I find extreme fault with the premise presented, and as such i don't feel i can adequately answer the question. Instead i will explain why i feel the premise is flawed.

In my opinion, your premise is flawed in several ways, which will affect the validity of the answers. I will first address the problems with Ferrus Manus as warmaster, and follow up with the problems I have with the idea of the emperor controlling the situation and intentionally sacrificing legions in any way.
1.Ferrus would never have been chosen as warm aster. Horus was chosen as war master because he was an amalgam of all the characteristics the emperor thought that position would require. Lacking his charisma, as has been state previously, would have made it nigh impossible for ferrus. That aside, the combat capability of the primarch is very much relevant, because martial prowess would dictate strength on the battle field. Strategy is good, but if he got out on the field and can't charismatically lead his men or hold his own against a rival primarch, then he is screwed
2. Ferrus wouldn’t have been chosen by chaos. Ferrus was a good logisitican and organizer. He also was very good with technology, but was terrible at politics, in fact he stayed out of them as often as he could. To someone who is portrayed as hyper rational, logical and nigh emotionless, the powers of chaos hold very little reward. From my understanding, he basically had the most leeway with tech that anyone was afforded by the Ad. Mech. And he wanted to organize his legion to be the most efficient. He had not ambitions to be more than what he was. And, if not charisma, personality, or political acumen, the one thin that the chaos gods needed in order to latch on to his soul would have been ambitions for thing larger than himself, and my understanding of what he has been portrayed to be he just didn’t have it.
4. All of the previously stated things aside, IF he had been war master, and IF he had fallen to chaos he would have take very few with him independent of external forces and certainly wouldn’t be the leader of the rebellion . The legions that fell, fell because either situations that specifically happened to their primarchs, or thing the emperor did to alienate them. The only reason Horus was as successful is he understood the situation and capitalized on his charisma and political strengths, something Ferrus was sorely lacking. If they had chosen to rebel they would have seen him more as a compatriot than a leader. IF that were to happen Loregar or Perturabo would probably have become the leader of the heresy,
5. If he was chosen as war master, and IF he Fell to chaos and IF he was chosen to lead the rebellion, it wouldn’t have been far reaching. What Horus understood better than any Primarch was how to use each legion and Primarch to the most effect. Ferrus, couldn’t do this because t would have required an insight into the personality and relationships that the other Primarch had, not only with each other but with their legions. Horus played Primarch and legions against each other to achieve his goals, and I doubt Ferrus would have done that because it requires an empathic understanding of the human/astartes./Primarch condition that Ferrus simply lacked. And without that the rebellion would have stalled and died due to infighting and internal strife.
6. I personally find the idea of the emperor "sacrificing" three legions at the drop site to be absurd. That implies that he was absolutely knowledgeable and in control of what was happening at the time of the drop site massacre, and he emphatically was not. If he was in a position to intentionally sacrifice Ferrus or any legion for that matter, he would either have to be present at the battle or have such good and up to the minute intelligence to make such decisions, And he wasn’t or didn’t. to imply that he did or was is to ignore the root cause of the heresy to begin with, the emperor’s personal distance from the fighting. Also intentionally killing a Primarch or sacrificing a single legion, let alone 3 as the question asked would have been suicidal to the emperor’s cause. The victory would have been pyrric at best. The emperor was simply too far removed to have any meaningful affect upon decisions at these battles. We also have no evidence that I know if, that indicates the emperor took a hand in formulating plans for either incident on istivaan or any battle before terra during the heresy.
These points are solely based upon my understanding of the 40k fluff. If I am wrong, and can be proven so I will gladly admit it, but that is my opinion on the matter.

1. Irrelevant to discussion, but interesting nonetheless.
2. This more described the Lion than Manus.
3. [THIS POST REMOVED AS I'M SURE IT WAS ABOUT THE ALPHA LEGION]
4. That's actually a pretty good theory. I like where your head's at.
5. Blatantly incorrect. Horus said explicitly that the only one of his brothers as capable as himself in the role of Warmaster(that being someone who combines all elements perfectly to execute warfare) was Ferrus Manus. Sorry, but there's no wiggle room on this one. It wouldn't have been as dramatic, but Manus and his legion are described as a literal war machine; they would have played out the most brutal, effective campaign. Those internecine conflicts Horus drew on? Manus wouldn't ignore this. It would be factored in. Don't be silly.
6. This one actually isn't me. The Emperor admits it to Kai Zulane. Carry on, but it seems to be what happened.

please explain how Ferrus not being chosen as warmaster is irrelevant to the discussion?

And yes point three may have been stolen by alpha legion.

 GKTiberius wrote:
please explain how Ferrus not being chosen as warmaster is irrelevant to the discussion?

The focus of point numero uno was Primarch's fighting one another, no?

No... the point to number one was that Ferrus would not have been chosen as warmaster.

 GKTiberius wrote:
No... the point to number one was that Ferrus would not have been chosen as warmaster.

That was just dismissal to a posed hypothetical. When pursuing a hypothetical, what is more irrelevant than a dismissal?

Since that snippet didn't matter, I moved on to the more thoughtful direction of Primarch fighting. Horus doesn't face another Primarch until he is imbued with Emperor powers, so aside from being a demigod who could crush robot dragons and slay worlds, I'm not sure what you need from Mr. Manus.

Point 3 was rolled into point 2 on accident... please separate then at despite being a good tactician... damn thigh GKTiberius is a hack writer... can even properly spear ate his points... smh...

 EmpNortonII wrote:

epronovost wrote:
Ferrus Manus had the charisma of an oyster. He knew it himself and recognised this as his greatest mistake. He would have trouble turning his own Legion to Chaos let alone other Primarchs. Ferrus Manus would have been the worst choice after Kurze. After all, he was troubled by his Legion attitude toward bionic and flesh, but didn't knew how to adress it under the current circomstances.

Kurze was a fantastic choice. He would have done the one thing none of the other Primarchs could have done.

He would have let the Emperor kill him... and the fallout would have been MUCH worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

2BlackJack1 wrote:
Didn't Horus ever mention that Rowboat would've made a good Warmaster? If not him, I'm pretty sure Hours said someone deserved the honor more than he did.

Girlyman was one of the worst combatants of the primarchs.

Him, Magnus, Manus, Dorn, and Lorgar, I think, make up the bottom rung.

LOL MAGNUS?
I'm speechless.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense. I see where you're coming from on all points. There exists an entire parallel HH wherein Dorn is the one who turns.


These kinds of questions are posed in a way that will help flesh out some of the unspoken elements of the greater story. For instance, had it been Ferrus, he would likely have carried much of the Mechanicum with him. How different may the end result have been with 9/10 titan legions and knight houses on the side of Chaos? Little things like this are entertaining to think about in a universe that is regularly allowed to stagnate by the Black Library and Games Workshop as a whole.

I'd argue the validity of your premise makes a dismissal valid. Before you can entertain possibilities, you have to build upon a sound premise... if not you could just as easily say "guys wouldn't it be cool if Ferrus manus was just as competent at being warmaster and fell to chaos in a similar manner to horus but added more organization and tech to the heresy?"... if that were the question asked my response would have been "that is an interesting thought. Let's explore that"

You asked for opinions as to what would have happened without conditions applied, and my opinion is that it wouldn't based on the above conjecture.

 Khonsu wrote:

 EmpNortonII wrote:

epronovost wrote:
Ferrus Manus had the charisma of an oyster. He knew it himself and recognised this as his greatest mistake. He would have trouble turning his own Legion to Chaos let alone other Primarchs. Ferrus Manus would have been the worst choice after Kurze. After all, he was troubled by his Legion attitude toward bionic and flesh, but didn't knew how to adress it under the current circomstances.

Kurze was a fantastic choice. He would have done the one thing none of the other Primarchs could have done.

He would have let the Emperor kill him... and the fallout would have been MUCH worse.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

2BlackJack1 wrote:
Didn't Horus ever mention that Rowboat would've made a good Warmaster? If not him, I'm pretty sure Hours said someone deserved the honor more than he did.

Girlyman was one of the worst combatants of the primarchs.

Him, Magnus, Manus, Dorn, and Lorgar, I think, make up the bottom rung.

LOL MAGNUS?
I'm speechless.

I'll admit, I don't know where Norton gets this stuff lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 GKTiberius wrote:
I'd argue the validity of your premise makes a dismissal valid. Before you can entertain possibilities, you have to build upon a sound premise... if not you could just as easily say "guys wouldn't it be cool if Ferrus manus was just as competent at being warmaster and fell to chaos in a similar manner to horus but added more organization and tech to the heresy?"... if that were the question asked my response would have been "that is an interesting thought. Let's explore that"

You asked for opinions as to what would have happened without conditions applied, and my opinion is that it wouldn't based on the above conjecture.

As adults and critical thinkers, we needn't preface our every conjecture with "Guyz, guyz...guyz....what if-"



If you're given a hypothetical and cannot comprehend, rationalize, or otherwise cope with the given scenario, simply move on!
To your credit, you do seem to grasp the hypothetical elements of the original post by now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's genuinely depressing that this thread is so hung up on "NU UH! Ferrus wouldn't be Warmaster!"

Come now... Act your age. Engage in critical thought or find a thread more to your liking. Explicit questions were asked and I would enjoy a genuine discussion on the subject presented by the thread.

I grasped it the first time... what you seem to fail to grasp, and what several people have tried to tell you, is that Ferrus is a poor choice to do this thought experiment on. And every time someone give you a valid reason why you explain that it isn't relevant. Your phrasing is very important because without proper phrasing and framing people will misunderstand the purpose of the thread. I took it as "please comment on my idea" not "please come agree with my personal opinion on this"

 GKTiberius wrote:
I grasped it the first time... what you seem to fail to grasp, and what several people have tried to tell you, is that Ferrus is a poor choice to do this thought experiment on. And every time someone give you a valid reason why you explain that it isn't relevant. Your phrasing is very important because without proper phrasing and framing people will misunderstand the purpose of the thread. I took it as "please comment on my idea" not "please come agree with my personal opinion on this"

Norton and you seem to be headlining not getting the point of this. To actually borrow your own idea, this seems to be you expressing your ideas and opinions and wanting them followed as fact in the midst of what should otherwise by an engagement of the possibilities offered up by the scenario.

The first thought that should have occurred to you after reading the initial post is, "What would have been different?" as it was the first question posed. Since my phrasing was dead-on and your literacy or need to state an opinion that wasn't requested was not, I can find little fault in the original post for your responses.

Now that I've thoroughly broken down the definition of hypothesis over several posts and the minority that has been threatened by a notion not their own has been somewhat quelled, I welcome you again to examine the first post and bring your own speculations to the fore. I asked specific questions and I'm not overly patient with attempt to derail. I welcome and (again) request ideas regarding the following:

1) Ferrus Manus is Warmaster. How much of the Heresy is/could be changed?
2) The Emperor all but openly admits he sacrificed Manus. Would he have done the same with Horus in this fake universe?
3) What other ripples and events may spring from this fundamental shift?
4) Why did the Emperor sacrifice three legions?

For those who don't read or like to skim, the Emperor admits to sacrificing Manus. This faintly suggests sacrificing the three loyalist legions. Rather than dispute this, I refer you to the specific question.

*Sorry if that seemed brusque, I just thought I had asked fairly straight-forward questions and so far I've received mostly people fighting the premise. Sorry, the premise is here. Now, let's get some answers thought up!

Based upon those parameters:
1. He would not have fallen to chaos, so the heresy would be different in that it would not have happened, at least not with the Warmaster falling to chaos.

Your following three points refer to a passage in a book I must admit I haven't read, but after researching it i don't see where he "all but says it" he makes an analogy using a chess board. But at the risk of falling into the same argument, I will just go along with your assessment of the situation and say this:
Yes he would have and stuff would have happened in a simmilar way. If he was willing to sacrifice ferrus and 3 legions to try to stop horus, then he would be willing to sacrifice another primarch and three legions to stop ferrus.

But I would like you to point out any other source material that points to the emperor commanding any part of the stratagy surrounding istivan or ferrus' death beyond a cryptic and vague passage in a single bl book.

@Shidank I agree with you here. I enjoy the what ifs, not the why nots. Its things like this which put me off certain forums completely.

As for the question 1. perhaps the heresy is much less vs the emperor and much more vs Mars and its "old and useless ways"
Perhaps a crusade of enlightenment occurs where the Iron Hands start to experiment with non STC/Mars approved tech and the heresy starts from there?

The idea that a "Curze Heresy" would result in anything other then Curze and his entire legion getting crapped on and everyone else moving on with their lives is patently ridiculous. The only way to be a successful martyr is for people to care about you, and no gave a gak about Curze.

I'd like to see a quote of this passage that implies the Emperor sacrificed Manus and/or other legions.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

I'd like to see a quote of this passage that implies the Emperor sacrificed Manus and/or other legions.

As would I

Outcast Dead- Look for Kai Zulane's regicide game with the Emperor. It's not nearly so subtle as GK believes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Edreynaline wrote:
@Shidank I agree with you here. I enjoy the what ifs, not the why nots. Its things like this which put me off certain forums completely.

As for the question 1. perhaps the heresy is much less vs the emperor and much more vs Mars and its "old and useless ways"
Perhaps a crusade of enlightenment occurs where the Iron Hands start to experiment with non STC/Mars approved tech and the heresy starts from there?

A mechanical version of Fulgrim's legion's corruption? There's an idea I hadn't entertained. I wonder if they'd essentially just be chaos techmarines?

Ok everyone let's all agree that ferrus simply would not have turns to chaos, I think that's something we can all agree with! What Horus says is more regarding the fact that manus had a great understanding of war, and the truth of war, rather than the fact that he would have made a good warmaster. Ferrus was someone who saw a lot of the reality and truth of the war and conflict around him, and wasn't blinded to it like many primarchs, such as how fulgrim saw it as an art form, Angron found killing fun, the space wolves and white scars to bound by honor etc.

Let's try and keep this discussion civil and intelligent, and not devolve into name calling over rather unimportant and small topics.

Clockwork Iron wrote:
Ok everyone let's all agree that ferrus simply would not have turns to chaos, I think that's something we can all agree with! What Horus says is more regarding the fact that manus had a great understanding of war, and the truth of war, rather than the fact that he would have made a good warmaster. Ferrus was someone who saw a lot of the reality and truth of the war and conflict around him, and wasn't blinded to it like many primarchs, such as how fulgrim saw it as an art form, Angron found killing fun, the space wolves and white scars to bound by honor etc.

Let's try and keep this discussion civil and intelligent, and not devolve into name calling over rather unimportant and small topics.

As stated previously, the premise is established and specific questions are asked. Please stick to the topic at hand.

 Shidank wrote:

Clockwork Iron wrote:
Ok everyone let's all agree that ferrus simply would not have turns to chaos, I think that's something we can all agree with! What Horus says is more regarding the fact that manus had a great understanding of war, and the truth of war, rather than the fact that he would have made a good warmaster. Ferrus was someone who saw a lot of the reality and truth of the war and conflict around him, and wasn't blinded to it like many primarchs, such as how fulgrim saw it as an art form, Angron found killing fun, the space wolves and white scars to bound by honor etc.

Let's try and keep this discussion civil and intelligent, and not devolve into name calling over rather unimportant and small topics.

As stated previously, the premise is established and specific questions are asked. Please stick to the topic at hand.

why are we only allowed to speculate on things that agree with your version? You don't want us to stifle the idea, and i'm fine with that no one is trying to stifle your idea, we are just exploring our opinions on it. several people in this thread have explored different facets of your idea while accepting every part of the premise, but others, myself included obviously want to explore the fact that your scenario is patently unfeasible. I get that you want us to help you explore whatever head-cannon you have, but you can't ask us not to state our opinions. Or opinions about how unrealistic, or unfeasible the scenario are just as valid as opinions that accept everything in your premise. They don't detract from the discussion, in fact they broaden it. Why not rebut our claims, give credence to your premise by defending it. continuously asking people to not explore the validity of the premise is to ignore a huge portion of this theory. if your theory cannot stand up to scrutiny then it really isn't worth considering or discussing.

It would be similar to asking "What if the emperor came back to life, accepted the greater good philosophy of the tau, used his vast psychic and technological powers to reprogram the necron race, and use the superior technology of tau and necron fueled by the numbers and resources of the imperium to retake the galaxy. What would happen then?" and then asking everyone to ignore how ridiculous that idea is.

Also you have yet to provide evidence that the Emperor was concretely aware and intimately involved in the planning and execution of either istivaan situation or directly wanted to sacrifice Ferrus Manus or the three legions you stated in the original question apart from a vague chess board analogy that may or may not hint that he directly intended Ferrus to be sacrificed. IT happened in a series of dream sequences, between the Astropth and the Emperor. That passage can be interpreted a number of ways and it never explicitly says that the first piece to die was intended to be Ferrus. It could also very well imply that the emperor knew that casualties would happen and sacrifices would have to be made to stop Horus. that is a very different thing than "all but says"

You posted a topic on a forum for discussing the hypothetical vague and loosely organized cannon of a fictional universe, so it is incredibly unreasonable of you to exclude or ignore perfectly valid opinions on the topic that you posted. you cannot ask for input and then ask people not to disagree with you, that isn't how discussions work.

 GKTiberius wrote:

 Shidank wrote:

Clockwork Iron wrote:
Ok everyone let's all agree that ferrus simply would not have turns to chaos, I think that's something we can all agree with! What Horus says is more regarding the fact that manus had a great understanding of war, and the truth of war, rather than the fact that he would have made a good warmaster. Ferrus was someone who saw a lot of the reality and truth of the war and conflict around him, and wasn't blinded to it like many primarchs, such as how fulgrim saw it as an art form, Angron found killing fun, the space wolves and white scars to bound by honor etc.

Let's try and keep this discussion civil and intelligent, and not devolve into name calling over rather unimportant and small topics.

As stated previously, the premise is established and specific questions are asked. Please stick to the topic at hand.

why are we only allowed to speculate on things that agree with your version? You don't want us to stifle the idea, and i'm fine with that no one is trying to stifle your idea, we are just exploring our opinions on it. several people in this thread have explored different facets of your idea while accepting every part of the premise, but others, myself included obviously want to explore the fact that your scenario is patently unfeasible. I get that you want us to help you explore whatever head-cannon you have, but you can't ask us not to state our opinions. Or opinions about how unrealistic, or unfeasible the scenario are just as valid as opinions that accept everything in your premise. They don't detract from the discussion, in fact they broaden it. Why not rebut our claims, give credence to your premise by defending it. continuously asking people to not explore the validity of the premise is to ignore a huge portion of this theory. if your theory cannot stand up to scrutiny then it really isn't worth considering or discussing.

It would be similar to asking "What if the emperor came back to life, accepted the greater good philosophy of the tau, used his vast psychic and technological powers to reprogram the necron race, and use the superior technology of tau and necron fueled by the numbers and resources of the imperium to retake the galaxy. What would happen then?" and then asking everyone to ignore how ridiculous that idea is.

Also you have yet to provide evidence that the Emperor was concretely aware and intimately involved in the planning and execution of either istivaan situation or directly wanted to sacrifice Ferrus Manus or the three legions you stated in the original question apart from a vague chess board analogy that may or may not hint that he directly intended Ferrus to be sacrificed.

You posted a topic on a forum for discussing the hypothetical vague and loosely organized cannon of a fictional universe, so it is incredibly unreasonable of you to exclude or ignore perfectly valid opinions on the topic that you posted. you cannot ask for input and then ask people not to disagree with you, that isn't how discussions work.

You aren't speculating. That would be monstrously invigorating if you were. If you have a genuine interest in exploring it being unfeasible, you should take advantage of the ability to post a new thread.

As for the lack of proof, I've pointed you to the book. Your anger and unwillingness to go read it has little to do with me.

My impatience comes from the premise being challenged when that is not even slightly what is being requested. The premise's feasibility does not interest me. If it did, I would have discussed it and requested otherwise. Again, I ask that you grow up and either respond to the questions of the thread, or simply don't post.

Yes I am speculating. I’m speculating that it wouldn't happen. That is an equally valid speculation as what you have presented.

Your “grow up” comment implies you believe me to be childish in my pursuit of this topic. But if I’m not mistaken, in most adult discourse it is expected for people to defend their ideas and postulate possible theories an alternatives if you disagree with something. What is truly childish is when you can’t handle someone disagreeing with you and you refusing to provide evidence or support your assertions. Instead you are content to complain that some people aren’t agreeing with you. This “Agree with me or get out” is the not only childish but it is insulting to the other members, because it forbids them from expressing a contradictory thought. So please before you lecture me on the appropriate adult behavior in a discussion, look at your own actions and take your own advice.

But proof for Ferrus being a good Warmaster isn't in the book. Proof of Ferrus being able to read war like no other is, but being Warmaster isn't just about that. It's being able to lead men and for men to want to follow you. This is where Ferrus stumbles and where he wouldn't be a good Warmaster, also why he wasn't chosen over Horus.

So where you have provided your outlines of the thread, others are going to express their opinion on the matter whether you like it or not, it is an open forum.

If you provided some of the quotes yourself, rather than tell people to go and look for them, people might be a bit more willing to accept what you want of them.

GKTiberius...

Your very idea that I'm disagreeing shows your lack of insight here. I have not argued for something here. I have asked questions.

Evidence to back the assertion was provided(though your unwillingness to read or accept it is bordering on obstinacy).

You cannot contradict a direct question. You can answer it.

If the question is based in speculation, so too then is the answer. Debating the feasibility of the premise shows a willfull ignorance to the entire concept of speculation. It is also extremely rude, as an answer was requested, not an argument. A reasonable discussion on the points presented was welcome. Your persistent need to be right when you've been proven in the wrong here is wearing thin. The thread had very clear questions. Your need to derail, flame, spam, and continue in your pursuit of an entirely different topic(the feasibility of the premise) has shown you to be little more than a troll and a child. I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I'm done speaking with you on this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pilau Rice wrote:
But proof for Ferrus being a good Warmaster isn't in the book. Proof of Ferrus being able to read war like no other is, but being Warmaster isn't just about that. It's being able to lead men and for men to want to follow you. This is where Ferrus stumbles and where he wouldn't be a good Warmaster, also why he wasn't chosen over Horus.

So where you have provided your outlines of the thread, others are going to express their opinion on the matter whether you like it or not, it is an open forum.

If you provided some of the quotes yourself, rather than tell people to go and look for them, people might be a bit more willing to accept what you want of them.

You're right and if I were arguing for the premise, that would be true. As I'm not, it's simply a deviation from the point of the thread.

But posting a question like this on an open forum invites scrutiny of the question asked. And I haven’t been proven wrong, you just have continually said,” I’m not going to answer your questions or issues raised and I would appreciate you stop causing trouble because it is difficult to answer your questions.”
Also you can contradict a question if the question itself is invalid. Also I have demonstrated in multiple posts my comprehension of the situation and passage you are referring to. The burden of proving the premise is on you. And if you cant, you cannot get mad when someone points it out. Again you seem to fail to grasp, to use another of your phrases, the nature of a discussion. In such discussions there is no differentiation in a topic between question and premise. You cannot ask someone on an open forum to not comment on the premise; because in order to answer the question and give you the speculation you want one must accept the premise. If I don’t accept the premise, I am certainly within my right to question it and other people, you included can answer and refute those questions with evidence. Also I don’t need to be right. As I stated in my original post, if evidence to contradict my view is presented I will change my view. All you have “proven” is that your premise cannot stand up to scrutiny. I’m sorry if my desire to explore that angers you. If you just wanted people to agree with you, an open forum on the internet is not the place to post.

 GKTiberius wrote:
But posting a question like this on an open forum invites scrutiny of the question asked. And I haven’t been proven wrong, you just have continually said,” I’m not going to answer your questions or issues raised and I would appreciate you stop causing trouble because it is difficult to answer your questions.”
Also you can contradict a question if the question itself is invalid. Also I have demonstrated in multiple posts my comprehension of the situation and passage you are referring to. The burden of proving the premise is on you. And if you cant, you cannot get mad when someone points it out. Again you seem to fail to grasp, to use another of your phrases, the nature of a discussion. In such discussions there is no differentiation in a topic between question and premise. You cannot ask someone on an open forum to not comment on the premise; because in order to answer the question and give you the speculation you want one must accept the premise. If I don’t accept the premise, I am certainly within my right to question it and other people, you included can answer and refute those questions with evidence. Also I don’t need to be right. As I stated in my original post, if evidence to contradict my view is presented I will change my view. All you have “proven” is that your premise cannot stand up to scrutiny. I’m sorry if my desire to explore that angers you. If you just wanted people to agree with you, an open forum on the internet is not the place to post.

Your point here is the freedom to question. My point is that you willingly did it in a thread where that is a derail.

Post a new thread if you're legitimately interested. That you haven't yet shows me that not only are you not actually interested, but that this entire argument you've kept going is just a very tenacious attempt to flame.

Your attempts have succeeded in making me lose my temper, if that does anything to satisfy you. I apologize to anyone who came looking for discussion. I have requested a closure for the thread.

Your point here is the freedom to question. My point is that you willingly did it in a thread where that is a derail.

Post a new thread if you're legitimately interested. That you haven't yet shows me that not only are you not actually interested, but that this entire argument you've kept going is just a very tenacious attempt to flame.

But questioning something isn't derailing it. I genuinely want you to support your assertions. ans asking you to do so is neither flaming, trolling. or derailing, it is a common and widely accepted part of having a discussion. You continue to deflect questions of the validity of your premise and accuse me of flaming and trolling you. I have not insulted you, unlike your barbs and jibes at my maturity level. and I'm not trying to derail the conversation, i just want you to substantiate your claims. You cannot just put a premise out there and say "Ok guys, can we all just accept this, despite its questionable feasibility" without supporting evidence.

Also I would argue that my questions are relevant to the central theme and topic of this thread, which means that a new thread isn't necessary as this is a perfectly legitimate platform to discuss this topic.